Piracy Is A Cultural Opportunity; Embrace It

from the sharing-is-fun dept

Piracy has become a force of nature in the entertainment world. No matter what you make or how you release it, there are pirates waiting around the corner to try to get it for free. No matter what you try to stop this from happening, you just can't -- much like a storm, you have no control over its movements and power. All that is left is to embrace it and hope to harness the storm's power for your own benefit.

Being a 'pirate' was being part of a community. You and your friends shared games like social gaming gifts on Facebook. It didn't cost you anything to copy a game and give it to someone. A game was a social token to chat about, a gesture of kindness to reciprocate. A key takeaway from that time is that copying and sharing vast quantities of digital goods is a deeply fun, social and highly useful activity. This is a new thing, a new behavior in a post-scarcity world.

This is perhaps the most commonly ignored or overlooked aspect of piracy by those who want to end it. For many people, sharing games, movies and music is a fun activity that allows them to share what they love with their friends. Despite what those who seek to stop piracy think, there is very little animosity involved in the activity. It is this love of sharing that can be, as Daniel puts it, hacked for the benefit of the creator.

With shareware, we hacked the copying behavior. People would play the random floppies and some of clever programs would say "Hey! Did you know that you can pay for this?" And a small portion of users did. 'Pirate' and 'consumer' are not mutually exclusive properties. In our capitalist society, almost everyone (with a few notable exceptions) is trained to buy stuff. People who like checking out new software for free are really just another audience of potential consumers.

It was just recently that Ubisoft learned a similar lesson. That the percentage of people who pay for single purchase games is about the same as those that pay in free to play games. If you want people to pay for games, one of the best ways to get them to do so is to let them experience the game first and for free. By giving fans the ability to share the games with others who may not have heard about it on their own, you can expand the pool of potential paying customers.

Unfortunately, there are many creators and gatekeepers out there that want to vilify such behavior. They can't fathom that someone is playing, listening, reading, watching their work without paying for it. They see no benefit in it. This mindset has dangerous outcomes for their paying customers.

It has been a really confusing time for businesses. Some lashed out by labeling consumers as evil, some tried to protect the old ways with DRM. Relationships with customers...who see themselves as just having fun sharing cool stuff...became antagonistic. 30 years. When you raise kids in a warzone, they grow up parroting propaganda. No wonder the conversation is polarized.

It is actions like adding DRM, anti-piracy ads and threatening fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars that will end up costing the entertainment industry more in the long run. As those in the industry seek to threaten and lash out at paying customers, many of those customers will begin to lash out as well. They will end up doing exactly what the industry wants to stop, pirate. For many purchasers of games, it often starts by downloading cracks for games in order to remove restrictive DRM. But there is a lot that can be done to turn the tide.

Detach yourself from the emotions of history. Give up the past forms of what games were. Adapt to the current environment with one eye firmly fixed upon the future.

People copying digital goods as an inherently joyful social activity is an opportunity. It is an artistic opportunity. It is a business opportunity. It is a cultural opportunity.

There are opportunities out there that many creators have found and are enjoying. It can be things like adding a "Cockroach Edition" to your payment options. It can be adding pirate hats to all your characters and putting the game on the Pirate Bay. It could be giving players the ability to set their own price. It could be anything really. By embracing the sharing culture of your fans, you can expand you fan base and increase the potential to make a living.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Don't forget about Bioware..... Knights Knights of the Old Republic (crashed constantly unless you had integrated graphics) and KOTR II: The Sith Lord (no widescreen even though the year it came out , most people had widescreen monitors and did not work one bit on Windows Vista without hexing the executable file even if you applied the Vista "Patch").

This is probably a genius article, and I would first post Daniel Cook if I could. Where I think we need to go though is more of a Kickstarter model. Basically, I would gladly pay extra for boxed copy collectable, throw in some T-Shirts, posters/maps, etc, and I think gaming would evolve into the next generation model that both consumers and producers would benefit greatly.

Marketing isn't just getting money from customers.

It's helping them be glad they gave it to you.

I insist on paying Baen for books I get free, because they've always treated me as a friend to their enterprise. I'm glad, proud and happy go give them my money, and I go out of my way to make sure they get it.

These days I don't go to movie theaters, rarely buy DVDs, and rarely buy eBooks unless I *know* I'll like them. I'm NOT happy giving my money to people who use the word customer and thief interchangeably.

Re: Marketing isn't just getting money from customers.

yes, we WANT to be loyal customers for a 'thing'/'stuff' we like; it is just nearly IMPOSSIBLE to find ANY kind of fictitious legal entity (otherwise known as korporate-peoples) who produces ANYTHING -good or service- which inspires anything but disdain and revulsion on many levels...
telephone service sucks, can't talk to people at the company...
internet service sucks, and the isp doesn't care...
service at the restaurant sucks, and they don't care...
get fucked over by EVERY company you give money to for crap they won't fix...
WHY is it we're supposed to be happy-joy-joy konsumers again ? ? ?
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof

Re: Re: Marketing isn't just getting money from customers.

& Walmart, half the time the workers are off doing god knows what playing grab ass with eachother, boxes clutter the aisles, can't find nothing. They don't know/don't care.
& the banks suck, steal your money, screw you over. They don't care.

It's cause they've gotten used to being the 'bigshots' everyone depends on, they know even if they treat their customers like shit and screw them over every chance they get they won't suffer any repercussions for it. People will just grumble to themselves and carry on with the screwing.

Everyone figures they don't have a choice, screwing or go without, maybe that's a big part of the problem.

Piracy isn't a solution, it isn't really a chance. It's an abuse, and more over it's self defeating in the long run, removing the cash flow required to keep most content and software industries running.

Short term, it looks good... but in the long run, well...

check back in about 10 years. You won't like the results if we keep going down this road.

Re:

Infringement isn't a solution, it's a symptom of a problem that was created by myopic publishers that refuse to adapt to the shifting paradigm in the face of changing technology. This century is not a century of fixed media and physical distribution. This is a century of digital media and digital distribution. This is the century of the self-published artist. This is the century of the two-way conversation between the audience and the artist.

The content corporations are still addicted to the one-way conversation they used to have with us. Now anybody can create, publish, distribute, make commentary on, adapt, and remix works. This is a hard fact of what technology enables us to do. It also enables us to bypass the legacy channels of content distribution that no longer serve the demand of the public and people other than the legacy players are meeting that demand.

It matters very little that they violate a legal right granted by legislative powers. What matters is that technology renders those rights inert and that change can't be reversed, only redirected. There will never be a market like that which was in the heyday of the content industry, the party's over and they're going to have to reform their model if they mean to remain relevant to a culture that is accustomed to having instant access to content they want, the way they want it, for a price that suits them. The businesses that suckled at the teat of copyright will have to stop modeling their business to suit their own desires and start modeling it to suit their customers'.

Re: Re:

And it's amusing he's telling us to check back in 10 years. When piracy was in its earlier days back when Napster was the hype they were saying exactly the same thing. And surprise surprise! The digital sector is thriving!

Re:

You're prediction is rather funny actually, because while both of us will agree that in 10 years time there will be some casualties if things don't change, I'd bet that we're thinking of different groups entirely.

It's been shown that those that are willing, and able to adapt to the changing market are absolutely thriving.

Those that refuse to adapt on the other hand, and who then blame everyone but themselves for the resulting problems... not so much, and good riddance.

Bonus points for the 'kool-aid shower' line by the way, hadn't heard it used that way before, and a little creativity from you lot is to be commended, even if it is just a repackaging of one of the standard attempts at insult.

Re: Re:

You do know, of course, that piracy has been around much longer than ten years?

More to the point: Guess what? More software has been created in the "piracy" years than ever before. More music has been created in the past ten years than ever before. Movies have been pretty constant (as far as I can tell), but the profits from movies have only been increasing.

The anti-piracy crew likes to pretend that piracy actually results in the production of fewer movies, albums, or games. There is not one single shred of evidence that supports their position.

In ten years, after piracy is even more the norm than it is now, we'll have even more movies, music, and computer programs.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

"More to the point: Guess what? More software has been created in the "piracy" years than ever before. More music has been created in the past ten years than ever before. Movies have been pretty constant (as far as I can tell), but the profits from movies have only been increasing."

Wow, let me get out my debunking boots, it's going to get messy.

"More" is a very subjective thing. Software has always been increasing, because the amount of computers and devices has continued to increase. Piracy or no, the amount of software produced has gone up. Income? Not always so good. In fact, the current race to the bottom to compete with piracy (with 99 cent apps, free apps with ads, nagware) seem to be gutting things pretty solidly.

Music? More is being created because there are more tool, but often what passed for music is remixes and such. Not exactly productive life, is it? The time between major artist releases is generally getting longer, as they spend more time on the road making a living and less time making new music for the mooches.

Movies? Box office dollars have been pretty consistent, but actual ticket sales are down. The numbers are propped up only by the extra charge (slowly disappearing) for 3D movies and Imax presentations. The number of releases has gone up, the time in theaters has dropped, and the income per movie as a result is generally dropping, which is never a good sign.

"The anti-piracy crew likes to pretend that piracy actually results in the production of fewer movies, albums, or games. There is not one single shred of evidence that supports their position."

Actually, if you want a good lesson in what is to come, you are best to look at early internet adopters and early piracy victims to see what happens: Porn.

Simply, the internet for a short period of time increased the size and scope of the porn industry, making sales where none existed, with a landrush of companies moving online. Today, 15 years after that land rush started, the porn industry is decimated by piracy, with almost every single major studio and production company either closed out, sold, or consolidated into one of a few ownership groups (the biggest is a company out of Canada called Manwin, who run much of what's online, including Playboy's websites).

The number of productions, which initially spiked with the internet, has dropped to nearly nothing. Most pornstar girls actually make their money these days as escorts, using their occasional porn movies as marketing for their escort careers.

Now, ask around, and there is plenty of amateur porn, stuff people shoot of themselves on their iphones, sexting, and such. If you include that stuff as production, the things are constant. As an industry, as a business, it has been all but wiped out.

So pretending that piracy doesn't have effects is just ignorant. You just haven't seen the music and movie industries go through the full cycle yet.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I wish you would learn to read.

You don't get it: Internet porn is dying too, a victim of piracy and it's own self consuming nature. Basically, porn is now a commodity used to lure people to try to sell them other stuff, because they aren't paying for porn anymore. Porn production the world over is way down including in Japan - because there isn't any money left in it for them.

Looking at the material produced when there was money, and thinking that applies in the future just doesn't make sense. You enjoy today what was produced yesterday, but tomorrow, you get less because none was produced today.

Step back and think about it, and think about the implications. Porn was a business with plenty of margin to absorb this, and that margin is all gone. Movies and TV and music don't have those sorts of margins. What happened to porn is what is currently happening to music and will certainly happen to movies and to ebooks and everything else... until there is no money left in any of it.

I know it's hard to imagine, because you 20 somethings haven't lived those a whole cycle yet.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Thank god the porn industry is dying. I'd rather watch homemade porn by people who are thoroughly enjoying themselves than the passionless professional porn by people who are only doing it for the money. I hope every creative industry follows suit.

Of course. When you have these industries that depend on exclusivity and deciding what others get to survive, and suddenly something that allows people to choose what -they- want comes along, the limited one goes first.

It's like evolution, if the world heats up the first ones to die are going to be all of the arctic, boreal and tundric animals. On the other hand, the numbers and variety of heat adapted creatures will explode.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think that remixes are, for the most part, a lazy regurgitation of past success that makes movie sequels look downright inspired. It's the modern equivilent of a K-tel compilation album.

"When you have these industries that depend on exclusivity and deciding what others get to survive, and suddenly something that allows people to choose what -they- want comes along, the limited one goes first."

They don't depend on exclusivity - they depend on people respecting their rights as creators and performers to sell their products and services for a fair price.

"Piracy is cultural evolution."

Piracy is the absence of respect for the works of others. Perhaps it is the ultimate expression of the idiotic snitches get stitches mentality that pervades western culture. Whatever it is, it's not productive.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And how precisely do copyrights inspire new works?

They don't.

What they inspire is Mexican Hat Dancing around copyrighted content, or Simon Says with the copyright holders.

It's the same amount of regurgitation without copyrights, except you've got the additional bonus of being obligated to play two preschool level games to make your content legal! Of course, the holders can regurgitate as much as they want! Monopolized regurgitation!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"And how precisely do copyrights inspire new works? "

Well, it's pretty simple - if you cannot reuse someone else's stuff (again), perhaps you will be inspired instead to write your own. Rather than just reaching for an off the shelf solution (or off the web, ripping someone else off) you actually take the time and write your own screenplay, or write your own book, or actually write and (eek!) perform your own new song.

Hollywood? Yeah... that's why we get movies like Avatar, Big, When Harry Met Sally, The Game, Star Wars, and even toon movies like Cars and Toy Story. We get all those because Hollywood only regurgitates. Yeah right. Sorry, your strawman fails. Yes, they do reuse things, yes, they do make sequels, but they also make plenty of new stuff that people come to love.

Most of current culture is regurgitation... NOT ALL OF IT. Can you see in anything other than 白黒?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Nobody is standing on the backs of giants with a remix, they are sucking at the teat of simplistic duplication and derivative living.

"Remember this...

The Fantastic 4 that Marvel has?

It was a BLATANT attempt to copy the Justice Society of America comics.

In FACT! Stan Lee's boss walked in one day and said "DC has this Justice Society comic out, make one just like it."

And THAT is how culture thrives and continues."

Now pay attention to your own story. In a "remix" culture, he would have just bought a copy of the comic, changes a few words in the talk balloons, and called it a "remix". See? That's not advancing anything.

Instead, they were INSPIRED by the other one, they were lead to a new area and they developed their own twist, their own variation, they own characters, their own content, drew their own comic, and so on.

They didn't remix the content - they riffed on an idea.

If you cannot understand the difference, I pity the day when you get to university and hand in your first 95% borrowed remixed paper. Then you will get a rude awakening!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Also, I HAVE handed in those 95% "remixed" papers you claim, and I still got passing grades.

"Instead, they were INSPIRED by the other one, they were lead to a new area and they developed their own twist, their own variation, they own characters, their own content, drew their own comic, and so on."

Yes, but, BUT!

In YOUR world, DC should have sued marvel out of existence for DARING to use the idea of Justice Society for a new comic.

You didn't read my post at all, because, as I said "everything that has happened, everything that will happen, is inspired by stuff that's happened before.

Culture, society, etc, is built from what comes before it, and the tighter that is controlled by a select few, the worse culture and society gets.

However, if those few people didn't have so much control over culture and society, we would be allowed to grow even more than before."

Entire new genres can happen by "remixing" anyway...

You know hip hop? That's all remixing there, and it's an entirely different genre from other forms of music, now isn't it?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wait... put down those debunking tools as you're far too inexperienced using them and you're only going to hurt yourself. Let's see...

"In fact, the current race to the bottom to compete with piracy (with 99 cent apps, free apps with ads, nagware) seem to be gutting things pretty solidly."

App developers aren't competing with piracy, they're competing with all the other 99c apps on the market. If you do a search for a generic term like "shoot birds" you will get over 1000 results. How would a company like Rovio rise to the top of the casual gamers market if they start out their app at $20. Whilst many of those apps at 0-99c would be inferior, they would be fulfilling another measurable unit in peoples list of necessities... and that's 'time'.

A while ago I downloaded Mass Effect Infiltrator for 99c on sale. I haven't played in once. Why? because I currently tend to whip out my mobile for gaming only when I have a 5 minute break and I just want to continue on something casual with the sound off. I don't know when I'll play ME - if I ever will - because they stupidly haven't released it for my tablet yet (and they are lucky because I tend to avoid purchasing games entirely when they ignore the Asus Transformer).

Another competitor is 'trend-setting'. When Android was first released on phones, free/1.99 Angry Birds was the gaming standard in terms of price and graphics - the thing you had to beat in order to be a success. The latecomers like EA and Gameloft can't price their apps too high because with a choice of 1000s of slightly inferior titles versus a high priced one is just not enough of a pull. I'll purchase Dead Space for $6 but if they were asking for $30, well an alternative like Dark Area 3 will do me fine - after all it's my TIME as well as money.

3rd, they're competing with space. My first Android phone had just 200mb memory! 200mb - these days that's enough for all 4 Angry Birds titles and a couple of other budget games. In fact, I'm coming up against that problem now with my 16gb Transformer - I can't fit anymore games on it so I'm less likely to spend even on titles I really want to play.

"Music? More is being created because there are more tool, but often what passed for music is remixes and such. Not exactly productive life, is it? The time between major artist releases is generally getting longer, as they spend more time on the road making a living and less time making new music for the mooches."

So you think they'd make MORE money by staying in the studio and signing over the rights to their new songs to a big company who's going to spend it all on the RIAA? Did you even do the research before commenting here? Go on, google and find out how most artists make their money - I'll give you a clue - it doesn't happen by recording.

"Movies? Box office dollars have been pretty consistent, but actual ticket sales are down. The numbers are propped up only by the extra charge (slowly disappearing) for 3D movies and Imax presentations. The number of releases has gone up, the time in theaters has dropped, and the income per movie as a result is generally dropping, which is never a good sign."

Since I was a little boy I've noticed ticket prices at the cinema have risen consistently - along with condiments to point where the price of a cinema trip for 2 is almost the same price as what you'd pay at a chain restaurant.

But you know what else has increased - or should I say been introduced - since my childhood? Mobile phones and TV adverts before the main picture. So before I used to sit through 10-20 minutes of trailers for new films - which I always enjoyed anyway - now I've got to sit an extra 30 minutes through adverts I can see at home anytime! And when the main picture finally does start, how many times am I going to be distracted by a small bright shiny light or a ringtone?

That's not to mention the noisy gang of kids on the back row giggling through fairly serious or intense scenes because the producers just had to lower their age rating to get more punters and more spent on tickets.

I once sat in a cinema where someone lit up a cigarette! I didn't complain because I didn't want to miss something on screen but you can bet if they'd taken a picture on the iPhone the staff would be there! Funny thing is, someone with a camera on a tripod at the back wouldn't really effect my viewing pleasure - the noise, the mobile phones, the price and the occasional smoking does.

Since TV's have gotten pretty large and much cheaper over the years I guess that's why I, and everyone like me, is staying at home and waiting for DVD release or just downloading movies - and no - I NEVER watch cammed movies because they are such poor quality!

Speaking of staying at home to watch TV - have you noticed how large budgets have gotten for TV shows now? high production values, huge continuous story arcs... Ask yourself why so many Hollywood actors are now jumping ship from movies to TV?

"Simply, the internet for a short period of time increased the size and scope of the porn industry, making sales where none existed, with a landrush of companies moving online. Today, 15 years after that land rush started, the porn industry is decimated by piracy, with almost every single major studio and production company either closed out, sold, or consolidated into one of a few ownership groups...

...Now, ask around, and there is plenty of amateur porn, stuff people shoot of themselves on their iphones, sexting, and such.

So... which is it? Piracy, or the democratisation of publishing something that EVERYONE does? Which btw has no trademark, copyright or patent (which is a good thing because the human race would probably be wiped out in 2 generations - well unless everyone turned to pirate sex. Aaarrr!).

So pretending piracy is the reason for decline in certain industries when those industries are only facing what all industries face when technology advances (ice sellers vs refridgerators, horse & carts vs the automobile, film (photography) manufacturers vs digital cameras, I could go on), is just ignorant.

So Big Media may disappear, so what? Really, so what? Music, film, the arts.. they existed before Big Media, before copyright, they will exist after. Not in the form we are used to now, but when has any practice stayed in it's exact form from inception? Should cars be made to be pulled by horses?

Re: Re:

You do know, of course, that piracy has been around much longer than ten years?

More to the point: Guess what? More software has been created in the "piracy" years than ever before. More music has been created in the past ten years than ever before. Movies have been pretty constant (as far as I can tell), but the profits from movies have only been increasing.

The anti-piracy crew likes to pretend that piracy actually results in the production of fewer movies, albums, or games. There is not one single shred of evidence that supports their position.

In ten years, after piracy is even more the norm than it is now, we'll have even more movies, music, and computer programs.

Re: Re: Re:

More to the point: Guess what? More software has been created in the "piracy" years than ever before.

Even more to the point, the software industry started at a time when software was not even (thought to be) copyrightable. Piracy only started when s/w was officially put on the list of copyrightable works - so the software industry has grown up under two regimes - the no-copyright regime and the piracy regime. There was never a time when s/w copyright existed and was broadly observed.

Re:

Ehhhh... bad in the long run? I donít think history has borne you out on that. People love watching movies, listening to music, and playing games SO MUCH that thereís always someone out there figuring out new and better ways to do it. Even now, we see new industries and creators overtaking the old when they fail, thus keeping the media flowing. In the video game industry, for example, we see Capcom, Square-Enix, Activision, EA, and many other huge players looking shaky in the knees these days, while indie developers have exploded in population around them. Should those grand old trees finally collapse, thatíll just give all the little saplings a lot more room to grow.

The new philosophy for creating media seems to be one of love and peace with consumers, as if Jesus himself invented it. Though online file sharing may look shady on paper, it becomes infinitely worse when you draw attention to it by overreacting, which is what many big content industries have done. If they had only left well-enough alone, none of this would be happening now. Thanks to their berserking though, I think the future will belong not to those who control the consumer, but those who love the consumer and share that love with everyone they know.

Re:

Some pirates only do so because they can't afford the product. This does not impact sales while still allowing more people to become fans of your work.

Some piracy is the RESULT of a sale already made(for example customer buys game only to find absurd computer breaking DRM) sales are also not impacted here because you were already paid for the product you sell

Some pirates are just cheapskates and you shouldn't bother trying to stop them from pirating because they simply don't pay for uneeeded things. I've actually bought things on reccomendations from one such pirate

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

"Spoken like someone who does not undersrand the WHYs of piracy."

The "whys" of piracy are often the justifications for avoiding payment - I can't get it NOW, I can't get it with Swedish subtitles NOW, I can't get it cheap enough to pay for NOW, I don't like the options to buy NOW, and so on.

New movies, offered up online for $1 at the day of theatrical release would still be heavily pirated - and probably pirated off of those $1 copies. Price won't change much, pirates will be pirates.

You can justify it up the wazoo all you like, it comes down to the same thing: They will not pay for the product, no matter what - but they want it and will consume it.

Something has to change there, and if your remove the "making some money from it" you remove the ability to pay to make it. What you get for free today is because enough people are actually still paying for it. But that number continues to slide, leaving you with fewer and fewer people paying to entertain the masses.

"I've actually bought things on reccomendations from one such pirate"

Soon enough, you will learn to just ask him for a copy, and solve your problem altogether.

Re: Re: Re:

"New movies, offered up online for $1 at the day of theatrical release would still be heavily pirated - and probably pirated off of those $1 copies. Price won't change much, pirates will be pirates."

Yes, I agree. Everything would still be pirated...but if you put up movies for $1 on the same day as theatrical release, you create a new revenue stream. If I leave the theatre, and find that for $1 I could get a 1080p MKV file of that movie, with multiple subtitles and no DRM...I would pay (more often than not). I'm not the only one.
Yes, you would still have those who infringe, but you can at least attempt to create sales.

Re: Re: Re:

Just put your works up for sale, at a reasonable price, and I'll bet they will sell.

Sure some A**hole will steal some, that person is not going to go away. But if they are like me and I was looking for your work, I'll pay. I have the stupid DVD collection to prove I'm a sucker.

Holding things back by region or some other silly reason/mechanism just ignores the fact that some pirate will make it available. I'd much rather buy the version you provide when I want it. If I have a choice between the copy you made that is known to be awesome and a pirate copy, which may be a crappy cam or encoded badly, I will pay for the one you offer. Every damn time.

So there you have it. I do want your version. And I want to pay for it. But seriously, you going to make me wait 6 months to a year? Bah. Somethi..Squirrel!

Re: Re: Re:

"The "whys" of piracy are often the justifications for avoiding payment - I can't get it NOW, I can't get it with Swedish subtitles NOW, I can't get it cheap enough to pay for NOW, I don't like the options to buy NOW, and so on."

You have that completely backwards. People can get it NOW, they can get it with Swedish subtitles NOW, they can get it cheap enough to pay for NOW; they just can't get it that way from the people who created it. That sounds like a market opportunity.

"They will not pay for the product, no matter what - but they want it and will consume it."

You have described one group of people, and they are obviously not worth spending any time or money on fighting. That's literally pissing money down the toilet. Concentrate on those who are happy to spend. Doing anything else is just stupid.

Re: Re: Re:

The "whys" of piracy are often the justifications for avoiding payment

Or to avoid DRM which punishes PAYING costumers.

In that case, to NOT pay is the SMART option. I had to find a copy of the game without the malware, it just so -happened- to be free. They could've made the payed version without it and I would've bought it, but they didn't. Their loss.

Or because the actual product is way overpriced for what you're actually getting (900$ fucking dollars for a comic book no I wasn't making this up, it was no longer in print, and there was NO E-Book version of it anywhere except on torrents)

In that case, to NOT pay is also the SMART option. They could've avoided it if they scanned in it and made it available in an E-Book format, but they didn't. So the physical copies became obscenely priced. The E-Book/scanned version just so -happened- to free. They could've made it infinitely available at a sane price, but they didn't. Their loss.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So sometimes, yes it is avoiding payment. Deliberately. I don't have 900 dollars to spend on a comic that should've been made readily available. Sometimes I want to pay but I know I will get screwed over if I do. (DRM)

Re: Ditch the stupid puritanical nonsense.

"You need to get over your sense of entitlement."

Wait. So the freetards who refuse to pay for anything even if it's a reasonable price aren't the entitled ones...but the creator who offers their product for a good price and wishes to have their rights respected is the entitled one?

Re: Re: Ditch the stupid puritanical nonsense.

If you're making good stuff* and releasing it without DRM for a reasonable price**, then you're making money. As was mentioned before, it doesn't matter how many people are pirating from a business perspective, only how you can maximize profit. Unless you don't care about making money, in which case carry on persecuting potential customers.

* fans decide what is good, not you. And its existence on pirate sites may not be sufficient evidence of quality.
** the market decides what is reasonable, not you

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don't see anything wrong with people flagging comments they think are just bad. It doesn't really do anything but draw more attention to it and those that don't want their eyes offended by the flagged comment don't have to expand it.

Re:

I'm already liking the results we're getting now. Lots of cool, fun games are getting crowd-funded--bypassing the big publishers who would never have funded them. I think the world could do with fewer Call of Honor, Medal of Duty, Gears of Halo, and Madden: Same Damn Game as You Bought Last Year, Sucker titles that seem to be all the big publishers are funding.

the amount of common sense in this post is amazing. unfortunately, that is the very reason the industries will take no notice and continue to brand as thieves the very people they rely on, but piss off the most to make money, the customers.

Re: Re: Similar breakdown

Having an MBA pretty much guarantees you will have no creativity, which is why they never see any new opportunities staring them in the face. They should give the MBA's the old heave-ho and put some truly creative minds in there that can think divergently.

Re: Re: Re: Similar breakdown

"Having an MBA pretty much guarantees you will have no creativity, which is why they never see any new opportunities staring them in the face. They should give the MBA's the old heave-ho and put some truly creative minds in there that can think divergently."

Mike Masnick has a bachelor's degree in Industrial and Labor Relations and an MBA, both from Cornell University.

I bought my first VCR back in, IIRC, 1984. One of the first things I did was go to my local video store and rent out "Star Wars" and another VCR. I hooked the two VCRs together and taped it off. I was so happy to have my very own copy of "Star Wars" to watch whenever I wanted. Been a "pirate" ever since. Arrrrgh!

Re: Re:

No, I'd say that one got the pink treatment for the rape line, and rightly so.

You, him, and everyone else here have the right of free speech on this site. You do not have the right to consequence free speech, and if someone says something that out of bounds/offensive, then the comment will suffer the consequences and end up reported.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

" I don't want opinion, I would like some facts"

Lets have a look at your "facts".
- " .... 58% decline in recorded music sales since the arrival of Napster."

I believe that in this case the term "recorded music sales" refers to sales of label music only and therefore the "fact" can only be somewhat true and is mostly false because it is misleading due to a lack of qualifications and/or statement of assumptions.

The implication that the entire 58% is solely due to Napster is ridiculous.

I'm not convinced this addresses the point being made by the post in question, for example what about the total sales are up item? Perhaps someone is not being completely honest here. How does that saying go ... figures do not lie but liars figure.

Re: Re:

The problem....

All good and well , we all understand the way forward, we all understand the cause of the anger and hatred found all over the internet towards the likes of the studios , audio video and written word. The big problem is that even an article written as clear as this will just fly over there heads and they will block there ears and eyes whenever it is near them, why, because they are losing billions that was in there control, billions that has to go throught there bank accounts , and we all know how big a cut of those billions they take, this is the problem, we are threatening a few heartless selfish insensitive people who have control and are refusing to let that control over those billions go, they will demonise the change and everyone calling for it, wouldn't you if you were losing all that nice juicy money that is just streaming through the doors without you having to do much to get it.

The only way there is going to be change is when these demigods are routed out and removed from the positions they hold, where they are removed from there positions as gatekeepers by the customers and the artists, nothing else will get rid of them, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel, things are changing at such a fast pace it looks like any day something could happen that changes the whole entertainment industry.Just imagine waking up one morning to see headlines of hundreds of thousands of artists cancelling there contracts or releasing content under different names in a free and sane way, where they can make money and feel that there fans don't hate giving it to them.

Re:

Re:

Murder, rape, and theft are universally accepted as crimes with harmful outcomes. No-one argues with that.
Copyright infringement DOESN'T. Every single time we are told how harmful it is by copyright maximilists, their numbers just don't add up. Whereas time and time again, I have infringed on copyright and then, as a direct result of that infringement, paid.

One of the main reasons we here at Techdirt call you a stupid troll is you are constantly equating Murder+Theft+Rape with Copyright Infringement. They are completely different concepts, and crimes. For one thing, M+T+R are dealt with under criminal law, while copyright infringement is civil law. There is no point to equate them.

Re: Re:

there you got making excuses, we only have yours and masnicks word for it that copyright THEFT is a theft without a victim.. clearly that is not the case.. just as clearly if theft if wrong, then copyright theft is equally wrong..

all your doing is being a appoligist for criminals.. we know where your morals are..

i also like how you call it 'infringment' sounds so much cleaner than THEFT, as is its correct term..

and your quaint distinction between civil and criminal law, do you even know the difference ???

it's still a crime if it is civil, it is only a crime not against the state.. but I cannot expect you to understand that.. you'be been drinking the pirate mikes rantings..

Re: Re: Proof that you are making stuff up is not an "excuse".

Re: Re: Proof that you are making stuff up is not an "excuse".

Look at your quotes. There is absolutely nothing about copying. Unless you're trying to equate copying with taking away, which is reprehensibly stupid. After all, you effectively just copied/took quotes from the Bible!

And really, trying to mix Christianity in this mess? If you hadn't already figured it out, Jesus was a fish and bread pirate. More specifically, he was a third-party distributor, probably guilty of incitement to infringe.

My thoughts

An interesting series of mini-tantrums by everyone here all used before by people smarter than us, with varying levels of support, etc. Though, I don't think I have seen so many all compressed in a single post.

Three thoughts:
- It all depends on what kind of world you want. If you appreciate a law of the jungle mentality, you will have a certain value system. If you are a connoisseur and have the means to support your appreciation of hard work-supported quality you will want another. My guess is that there is far, far more of the former than the latter, especially in this medium. And the population at large accept it for lack of a comparison.
- in general, people are lazy, greedy, and stupid, though not necessarily evil. It has just been culturally accepted everywhere. Lazy - People will do as little as possible to achieve as little as they can get away with - all aspects of work and play. They don't see any problem with this. Greedy - People want raises but give no evidence of having gained any extra value - is someone with 20 years of experience more valuable than 15 - doubt it. Stupid - they are willing to undertake a task with little knowledge of how to do it, no understanding of the big picture, and no appreciation of those who would help or teach them how to do it.
- art in all its forms is not a viable career and has limited value to the important issues affecting the world and its improvement. It is a hobby and pastime - one that we should all be given enough time off work (real) to do and freely distribute. The ideal system is where everyone gets a technical education - blue or white collar and produces works of art on the side, performance, visual, aural, etc. More art in the world, but more of a long tail of quality -- but with widespread sharing and support, i would bet that people produce the type of art they want, not what production houses demand, and eventually larger bodies of really insightful and inspiring work is created. Better for everyone.
And these issues are why so many people pirate, have a poor work ethic, do not appreciate nor understand quality, rebel and 'occupy' for no good reason, feel disenfranchised, etc. Of course, don't tell the artists any of these reasons for they will rebel out of spite rather than the traditional non-causes.

Re: Re: My thoughts

Fascinating.
Even though the pigs can occasionally pop their heads above the muck, they choose to stay in their sties. I suppose all the complaining and recycled non-answers at least give something to talk about round the cooler, rather than pursuing thoughtful real change. Hint: the whole system is broken and its not the labels, government, and judiciary - its the public. At least there is that truism: the people really get the government and 'system' they deserve.

Re: Re: Proof that you are making stuff up is not an "excuse".

Re: Re:

The point that you obviously missed is this simple fact, the auther of this article states, that as there is no way to possibly stop those committing these kind of crimes, you might as well embrace them..

My point (that you missed) is that you are also not able to stop murder, rape and stupidity, you missed that, or simply did not understand the argument..

that is, why dont we use his same plan with murder, rape and so on, after all there is no way to stop it..

You see how if you start with a stupid, non-logical argument, like the authors then your argument fails before it even gets going..

only a moron would think like that, if you cant stop a form of crime, support it !!!!!.. FFS..

here is his quote, so you want have to re-read the whole thing..

"No matter what you try to stop this from happening, you just can't -- much like a storm, you have no control over its movements and power. All that is left is to embrace it and hope to harness the storm's power for your own benefit.

ALL THAT IS LEFT IS TO EMBRACE IT !!!!!!..

yea, right, so embrace same sex weddings as well then !!!!.. you're not going to stop it, so embrace it ..

see how the auther created a scraw man argument, !!!

Clear, that is a lie, im sure there is more things you can do but embrace it, only a fuckwit would think like that..

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ignoring key details. Imagine that?

There is a key bit that you are ignoring in your rush to create this really bad analogy of yours. The costs of robbery and rape are considered severe enough that societies throughout recorded history have viewed it worthwhile to enforce try and stop them.

The cost of prosecuting robbery and rape is accepted. It has been for thousands of years. Killing a perpetrator or destroying their life has been considered acceptable for just as long.

No society has ever agreed to that steep social cost with regards to copying.

We don't execute people for speeding or jaywalking. We don't put so much effort into preventing them either.

Society at large just doesn't value that.

You're trying to conflate copying with murder when the pervasive historical and even contemporary tendency is to treat it more like jaywalking (if a crime at all).

Re: Ignoring key details. Imagine that?

it appears that MOST if not ALL societies have agreed to uphold standards of copying, and IP theft, patent and copyright laws have been around for a very long time, and secrecy has been around for ever..

throught history knowledge and the theft of IP (knowledge) has been consided a crime, and knowledge itself is accepted as a product of great value. That you have a RIGHT to protect..

Re: Re:

Piracy can leave a copyright holder in exactly the same situation as before the work was pirated. The same cannot be said for murder.

but you cannot say that is true !!, nor are you in any position to guage what level of damage your theft has.

you can only guess, and express your opinion, if for example, the pirated copy you made available replaces one that may have been legally purchased, then the damage you have done is take away a sale of his product.

what gives you the right to profit of his work, or to deny his ability to do the same ?

Re: Re: Re:

The problem with this thinking is both sides of the argument work in terms of black and white. Each case of the issue is an individual case, we can spin hypothetical situations all day and night long.

There may be a case where piracy does indeed harm an individual company, but there are also cases where it helps it. The point is, none of us here can really say yes or no for all cases.

Though I am not a lawyer, it would seem that the intent of the law is that, everyone can have access to anything, with ultimately it being the CREATOR's burden to deal with the repercussions of of other people's actions. It basically comes down to if a creator creates something and distributes it, if others come along see it and share it with others, they injure him in the sense that they have violated his right of control over copying something, but it is HIS responsibility to stop the people who are violating this right not anyone else's (hint this is why its civil not criminal law, the person who holds the copyright has to prove injury, and not even beyond a reasonable doubt).
Also interestingly enough I do think that it doesn't hurt them nearly as much as they claim, I mean, I constantly see the mantra of "Do not consume media that you didn't pay for" and wonder to myself if those people saying that realize what they're saying is: "Pay me, or ignore me." I am not a creator of material that I've attempted to sell but will also add that, I have always got the impression that most people who are actually interested in making art, or generally creating things are the kind of people that obscurity is the worst kind of hell for them. Maybe that's why we only see the inflammatory style AC's spouting that and not cool/kick-ass seeming folks (I'ma name drop Suja here) that make stuff spewing that.

What a joke

Wow, I have seen many limb-stretching rationalizations for not paying for something that someone wants money for, but this takes the biscuit. Most of the commentary here is completely alien to the spirit of Cook's piece, which makes sense by itself. I especially like the arguments about how businesses are being ruined by being run by people who insist on making money.

Re: What a joke

Pirates provide people what they want. They do so without the burdens of the cost of development but that doesn't really matter. They show others the way. You just have to ease up on the righteous indignation long enough to realize you need to adapt.

Although some people are irredeemable.

It's best to ignore those.

If you get your fairy godmother to magically stop piracy, you still gain nothing. You can't eat moral superiority.

Re: Re: Re: What a joke

*Facepalms*

You completely missed the point...

They show others the way. You just have to ease up on the righteous indignation long enough to realize you need to adapt. --Clipped from Jedidiah's post.

Pirates are showing these people who bear the burden of development cost exactly what the market wants and the ways to get things out into the market, they developed these technologies as open markets. (That's that phrase that means that the pirates actually bore the development costs)

This actually reminds me of a poster I saw back in highschool. "When one door closes another opens... But often we look so long so regretfully upon the closed door that we fail to see the one that has opened for us."

Re: What a joke

I especially like the arguments about how businesses are being ruined by being run by people who insist on making money.

It's one thing to make money, another to be like Mr. Krabs who sells both the rotten and paper variety of Krabby Patty to his customers because it's easier and cheaper for him.

Blizzard -could- fix Diablo 3 they have tons of money to do it but it's easier and cheaper for them to get idiots to buy a sub par product because of the brand name.

Chinamart- I mean, Walmart -could- have a better selection but it's easier and cheaper for them to have the bare minimum mostly made up of cheapy crap.

MAFIAA -could- fix their damn business model but it's easier for them to bitch and moan about piracy. The irony is that it's probably cheaper for them to embrace it, so they aren't even that good at making money!

Re: What a joke

" I especially like the arguments about how businesses are being ruined by being run by people who insist on making money."

Could it be that some businesses are run differently than others? ..... I'm shocked and amazed.

Apparently there is a difference between running a business with the future in mind and simply running it into the ground by skimming all the proceeds.

In a market where there is competition, repeat customers are valued and therefore treated accordingly. Where a monopoly exists there is no incentive to value the customer because they have no choice. In this case, the phrase "charge what the market will bear" has a different meaning.

Many complaints about greedy business practice are not born out of an attempt to rationalize not paying, it's more a symptom of being charged too much where there is little to no alternative. Discontent within a market equals opportunity, this is a simple fact.

Re:

I have a legit question to the Pro IP AC's here, show me ONE, JUST ONE company that has gone out of business due to Piracy...

Just one...

not due to the downturn of the economy, not due to being run incompetently, not due to being bought out

But due to Piracy and piracy alone..

secondly, I'm tired of the AC's here calling me thief. I'm about to file a libel lawsuit against some of the AC's here for the slanderous accusation of being a thief. I'm willing to open my PC for forensic analysis to prove I have no "stolen" content...

Re: Re:

there are many, for example, IBM went out of the PC market, bue to their computers being pirated by other companies, remember IBM compatable's ?? IBM does not make IBM PC's, they went out of the business of making pcs.

Re: Re: Re:

" IBM went out of the PC market, bue to their computers being pirated"

Bullshit.
IBM published the specifications for all to see and use, there were no trade secrets, patents, or licensing requirements - this was done willingly and they acknowledge this, although in hindsight they have said that an opportunity was overlooked. The ramifications and resulting boom in the PC market has been discussed at length and in depth many times by many people. I'm somewhat surprised you are unaware of this or perhaps you are simply trying to spread bs.

Re: Re:

so according to your binary world, it's either go completely out of business or suffer no damage at all, there can be no inbetween for you !

how could you possibly know how many projects are NOT even started because once piracy is factored in the project is not viable.. the number would be high as it is something investors have to consider before deciding to invests.. you'll never know what you missed out on.. after all piracy does not actually produce anything..

they re-produce, ie that thing has to exist in the first place, if it is never created, it is never pirated.

An interesting collary...

One of the most important considerations of a given religion is "what benefits does this religion impart to non-members?"

If you have to be a member in order to get any of the benefits, unless there are outside forces which will drive one to join them, people are not going to join.

In the 1950's and earlier, being a part of a church was an incredibly important part of local society, but in recent years, as society has fragmented in it's social presence, there is no longer any particular cache in being a church member, unless there is a particularly well attended church where all of the "local money members" happen to go. So church attendance has dropped significantly, since the only reason to go is because you're sold on their product.

Much of modern media is proceeding on this model. You're already sold on the product, and want to buy it...there's no real need to provide benefits for non-believers, because we refuse to accept that there is such a thing, or that non-believers hold any interest (or currency) for our organization.

Re: Re: An interesting collary...

Well, once again. If it's okay that people have to pay up front to listen to the music, or read the book, etc., then that's fine, but you're generally only going to attract the people who either A. don't care where their money is going, or B. are already sold on the product.

Re: Re: Re: An interesting collary...

Right, especially because it's now easy to get the benefit without paying. Those not willing to pay can have it anyway, and those inclined to pay can try it first. The legacy players still seem to think they can go back to a time when it was difficult to get the material without paying.